It strikes me that it is fair that a man should defend any practices he holds on the grounds on which he has adopted them, rather than with arguments and excuses afterwards invented. There are many arguments made [87] in defense of instrumental music in the worship--so many as to make one suspicious. The battle ground is now shifted mainly on the Greek word "psallo," and it is claimed that this word, though translated "sing," involves, or permits, the instrumental accompaniment. There are just two little reflections on this. One is the wonder of it that the Greeks, who probably understood their own language as well as any one else, have never, from the first to this day, permitted instrumental music in the worship. The Greek Catholic Church has always opposed it. And the second question is: Did the brethren who introduced the organ do so because of their conviction that "psallo" bears such meaning as they now claim, or was this only an after-thought? And are they willing to defend their practice on just the grounds on which they first adopted it?

[TAG 87-88]